OK, I generally don't do politics, but as this is being reported as possibly being the closest election race in years let's put it to the vote (no pun intended!) and see where popular opinion is pointing.
Found this quite funny on BBC website.
"On the stroke of midnight, the first votes were cast and quickly counted in the tiny village of Dixville Notch in New Hampshire. They resulted in a tie with five votes each for Mr Obama and Mr Romney."
hardtailstar (6th November 2012)
It's apparently close. Really? Really, really? Mitt Romney? Masochists or just morons?
I suspect the latter - and probably mostly people who don't want Obama retaining.
The equivalent of the UK putting BNP in power because "we don't agree with what Cameron/Clegg did or what that other useless git says"
Last edited by synaesthesia; 6th November 2012 at 11:19 AM.
There are just as many reactionary morons who vote for Obama.
Since neither Romney nor Obama have a credible debt management and deficit management program, rather more like the equivalent of the UK putting Milipede in to power instead of Cameron/Clegg.The equivalent of the UK putting BNP in power because "we don't agree with what Cameron/Clegg did or what that other useless git says"
It's a shame they can't both lose. Romney is a capable manager of a large company, but that isn't politics. A president needs to be able to build a team around him, not dictate. Romney will be a control freak, and he won't understand the limitations under which a president operates. It's not like a PM in the UK, who has theoretically limitless powers. Obama has already shown himself incapable of recognising the scale of the problems the US economy has. If he hasn't worked it out in 4 years, he's not going to work in out in 8. The US needs to cut spending, and it needs to cut it across the board, including defence. The man is mendacious and hides it beneath a veneer of charm, just like Blair.
That's exactly it - in very simple terms, in a 2 devil race:
Better the devil you know, or
Lesser of the two evils.
There's no disservice meant to any particular party of person but with the above simplification in mind, how on earth could anyone actually vote for Mitt Stick?
Cuts to defence? Have you seen what happens to a US politician who does that? They are basically out the door at their next election.
What's that old adage? You have to spend money to make money.
Last edited by localzuk; 6th November 2012 at 11:38 AM.
Again, if they're both rubbish, why not try voting a different way? What've you got to lose?There's no disservice meant to any particular party of person but with the above simplification in mind, how on earth could anyone actually vote for Mitt Stick?
Small factoid for everyone...Since 1950, every president that has been voted in has used a war against one country or another. (Gerald Ford was the only president not voted into Vice Presidency and then Presidency, although he did dispatch troops to Cambodia after the war finished)
Truman - Korea
Eisenhower - China (expansion of N/Korea)
Kennedy - Vietnam
Johnson - Vietnam/Cambodia
Nixon - Vietnam/Cambodia/Thailand
Carter - Syria (Shia Militia)
Reagan - Syria (Druze Militia)
GHW Bush - Iraq
Clinton - Bosnia
GW Bush - Iraq/Afghanistan
Obama - Libya
Essentially the US are warmongers and use their constitution as a way of declaring war, without actually declaring war. I do not care who gets voted in, as to be honest, they're as bad as each other (Republicans are the equivalent of Tories, just more religiously based, Democrats are equivalent of Labour, and Tea Party are equivalent to Lib Dems)
- War against Soviet and Chinese communistsTruman - Korea
War against Chinese communistsEisenhower - China (expansion of N/Korea)
War against Chinese and Soviet communistsKennedy - Vietnam
War against Chinese and Soviet communistsJohnson - Vietnam/Cambodia
War against Chinese and Soviet communistsNixon - Vietnam/Cambodia/Thailand
Insurrection against Soviet-planted puppet leaderCarter - Syria (Shia Militia)
See aboveReagan - Syria (Druze Militia)
UN-mandated action to liberate Kuwait.GHW Bush - Iraq
UN-mandated action to stop genocide after the collapse of Soviet puppet state. Bit harsh to call this 'warmongering'.Clinton - Bosnia
Attempt to push out Iranian/Saudi influence (which backfired horribly) from Iraq.GW Bush - Iraq/Afghanistan
Attempt to create pro-US state to replace collapsed Soviet puppet.Obama - Libya
Do you see the pattern here? US and Soviet activities across the globe were intertwined. Practically every conflict you listed was the US and Communist Russia or China going at it through a third party.
Essentially, they aren't.Essentially the US are warmongers and use their constitution as a way of declaring war, without actually declaring war.
I don't know who would be more offended by that, the Tea Party or the Lib Dems. And the Democrats are, politically, much closer to the Tories. There's no Republican equivalent in the UK, nor is there a US equivalent to Labour or the Lib Dems.I do not care who gets voted in, as to be honest, they're as bad as each other (Republicans are the equivalent of Tories, just more religiously based, Democrats are equivalent of Labour, and Tea Party are equivalent to Lib Dems)
I think whoever wins, doesn't really matter, America is in big trouble economically, their debt isn't really serviceable and America seems too divided over it all to come up with any sort of creditable solution, because their senate / representative houses basically counteract one another at the moment.
It seemed all along that they conspired to make it hard for Obama from the moment he was voted into office, It would be interesting if he got a bit more of a majority this time around when those houses get voted for, to see if he can actually make more effective change.
Obama seems more ideal to me personally than Romney though
Does it really matter, its the same evil just wearing different faces.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)